Recommended Posts

Hate to be nitpicking about the rules of these forums, but what is or is not "show canon" isn't a subject for discussion here. There is plenty of room over in the show forums for such discussions. Any reference to what does or does not happen in the show is forbidden here. Thanks in advance for following the rules from now on.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Which only shows you are drawing the wrong inferences from the story. Yes, the servants tale is meant to connect Jon to Ashara as his possible mother. That doesn't mean they think Jon was conceived during the tourney at Harrenhal way back in 281. WE, the readers, don't know about Ned and Ashara being together at Harrenhal at this point in the story. We learn that much later from Meera Reed's tale of the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Ashara is connected to Ned in the servants tale by his journey to Starfall to return Dawn after having killed Ser Arthur in "single combat." What we should draw, by inference, from the servants tale is that they think Jon was conceived while Ned was at war, not during a tourney well before the war. That too is what Cersei's remarks tell us.

As to Harwin's remarks, he is responding to what Ned Dayne tells us. Please note that Ned claims Wylla is Jon's mother not Ashara. Harwin is consoling Arya about whether or not Ashara and Lord Eddard fell in love, and it is only here that the background of the Harrenhal tourney is important. But falling in love and conceiving a child are two separate things last I knew about such things.

No, let us make this simple. If Ashara is Jon's mom, then Ned Stark and Lady Dayne met some time after Robb was conceived at Riverrun and the two had a love affair in which Jon conceived. Is that possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. It is the reason George warns the readers that the Lady Ashara is not "nailed to the floor in Dorne." Let's leave all Brandon connections to Ashara after he is dead - we have an eyewitness to his death in Jaime - out of this discussion.

I think we've reached the point in the conversation where it is time to remind you that these are only theories. Any demands for absolute proof will have to await the publication of future volumes.

I very much doubt that your own preferred theories would survive the standards of proof you demand from those theories you oppose.

Your argument was that Jon can't be older than his official birthdate, because people would know. Well, apparently people DO know, or at least think, that he was conceived at an earlier date. But (you say) you cannot absolutely prove that people think that. But these are the premises of YOUR argument - that people WOULD know, and they DON'T know, so this can't be true. It is up to you to establish the premises on which your argument relies, not rely on my inability to absolutely disprove those unestablished premises.

My perspective is that there is only one old Winterfell story about Ned and Ashara, and we get two different pieces of it from Harwin and Catelyn. And Harwin does assure Arya that her father did not dishonor Catelyn because the story, even if true, was only about what happened while Brandon was still alive and Cat betrothed to Brandon. Your perspective is that there are 2 old Winterfell stories, one where the tryst occurs at Harrenhal, but is not connected to Jon, and another where the tryst does not occur at Harrenhal or continues after Harrenhal, and is connected to Jon. This is how you avoid the conclusion that the servants at Winterfell believe Jon was conceived earlier. Okay, sure. You can do that. But you cannot prove that your approach is the correct one.

As for Harwin's remarks, he is not responding to anything Ned said about Wylla, and is probably not even aware of those remarks. Arya accepted the story about Wylla. It was the story about Ashara that angered Arya and caused her to call Ned a liar; and apparently caused Ned to appeal to Harwin. And when Harwin broaches the subject with Arya, it is the story of Ashara he talks about and not the story of Wylla. Not that it matters, as Harwin does not necessarily vouch for the old Winterfell tale about Ashara, or say that it is necessarily true. He is no doubt aware that there is another tale concerning Jon's parentage. His point was even if the story IS true, her father did not dishonor her mother.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Maybe she was having doubts about Maester Luwyn's adage that bastards mature faster than true-born children.

That quote is taken out of context stupidly all the time. Bastards do not physically mature faster, what nonsense. Maester Luwin is talking about bastards having a harder time of it socially and emotionally as children and so developing in those areas faster than more sheltered regular children. ﻿

I agree that the quote is taken out of context frequently.It is definitely meant that bastards become more independent etc faster than true-born children, simply because they have a harder life and have to mature faster to deal with the hardships of life etc. Emotionally they mature faster, they don't grow quicker physically.

If anything, bastards probably physically mature slower than true-born children, because typically, bastards are not raised in castles with plenty of food etc but are left to struggle the same as the common-born folk and as most common folk know hunger, their physical growth is often stunted.It's been established from the POVs that the common folk are often small, thin and hungry-looking, plus we know from outside GRRM’s ‘world’ that malnutrition leads to a lack of physical development.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My perspective is that there is only one old Winterfell story about Ned and Ashara, and we get two different pieces of it from Harwin and Catelyn. And Harwin does assure Arya that her father did not dishonor Catelyn because the story, even if true, was only about what happened while Brandon was still alive and Cat betrothed to Brandon. Your perspective is that there are 2 old Winterfell stories, one where the tryst occurs at Harrenhal, but is not connected to Jon, and another where the tryst does not occur at Harrenhal or continues after Harrenhal, and is connected to Jon. This is how you avoid the conclusion that the servants at Winterfell believe Jon was conceived earlier. Okay, sure. You can do that. But you cannot prove that your approach is the correct one.

If Jon was conceived at Harrenhal, that means he was born before the war started, because the war started a year (more or less) after the tourney.

Ned didn't immediately marry Catelyn at the start of the war, he had to travel North to raise the banners (a journey which was complicated and presumably took several weeks at the very least) and march back down South, participate in the Battle of the Bells, travel back to Riverrun after the battle and then finally he married Catelyn and conceived Robb.

Considering the distances that Ned had to travel to first go North to White Harbor and then South beyond Riverrun to the Stoney Sept, fight the battle and head back to Riverrun, we can conclude that at very least it must have been at 4-9 weeks since the start of the Rebellion before he married Catelyn.

That means that Robb was born 9 months (assuming he was not early and was not late) after their marriage, therefore Jon if conceived at Harrenhal is at least a year older, probably more in fact.There is no way that the servants, nor Catelyn, would accept that Jon is the younger baby if so, as the difference would be too great at that age/stage in their development.

Plus, Catelyn might not remember her sister as a baby, but isn't Edmure the youngest child, possibly by as much as 5 years or so?And Catelyn might still have been exposed to young babies during her life, she didn't necessarily exist in a vacuum.

Link to post

Share on other sites

If Jon was conceived at Harrenhal, that means he was born before the war started, because the war started a year (more or less) after the tourney.

Ned didn't immediately marry Catelyn at the start of the war, he had to travel North to raise the banners (a journey which was complicated and presumably took several weeks at the very least) and march back down South, participate in the Battle of the Bells, travel back to Riverrun after the battle and then finally he married Catelyn and conceived Robb.

Considering the distances that Ned had to travel to first go North to White Harbor and then South beyond Riverrun to the Stoney Sept, fight the battle and head back to Riverrun, we can conclude that at very least it must have been at 4-9 weeks since the start of the Rebellion before he married Catelyn.

That means that Robb was born 9 months (assuming he was not early and was not late) after their marriage, therefore Jon if conceived at Harrenhal is at least a year older, probably more in fact.There is no way that the servants, nor Catelyn, would accept that Jon is the younger baby if so, as the difference would be too great at that age/stage in their development.

Plus, Catelyn might not remember her sister as a baby, but isn't Edmure the youngest child, possibly by as much as 5 years or so?And Catelyn might still have been exposed to young babies during her life, she didn't necessarily exist in a vacuum.

That’s what’s been argued ad nauseam here, by many. But all these arguments are dismissed. The go-to counter argument we get is that we are only using them because they support what we believe in, and that doesn’t make them true, or something to that effect. But that’s inaccurate. Everyone in-story accepts that Jon is younger than Robb, or roughly the same age. And there is no way you can pass a toddler for an infant. Then there’s also what we have regarding the timeline... The war lasted “close to a year”; Robb was conceived after the war started, and born near the end of the war. And everyone and their dogs believe and fully accept that Jon was conceived during the war. Yup, it’s that simple.

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Presumably﻿ because Robb wa﻿s still too young for long journ﻿eys

Again, no. That’s just your opinion. We have the text, from Cat’s own PoV, saying she travelled with Robb “when the wars were over at last”, not ‘6 (or x) months after the wars ended, when it would be safe’.

Also, if Ned had gone first to RR then Winterfell, while Cat remained at RR w/ Robb to travel later, there would be something on it in the text. It would be super strange to have this happen and no one ever thinks about it ever or mentions it?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If Jon was conceived at Harrenhal, that means he was born before the war started, because the war started a year (more or less) after the tourney.

Yes, this is true.

However, the Platypus argument (as I understand it) is that people at Winterfell are sufficiently confused about the timeline that they still believe Jon might have been conceived there.

This would make them pretty dense. But then, people are dense (both in life and in these books), and often do believe remarkably stupid things. (Quite a few people in my country really did believe it was a good idea to give a childish reality TV star personal control over four thousand nuclear weapons.)

When Littlefinger pitches the story that Shireen is Selyse's bastard by Patchface, and says the proof is in her face, we get this:

Quote

Pycelle was lost. "But that is from the greyscale that near killed her as a babe, poor thing."

"I like my tale better," said Littlefinger, "and so will the smallfolk. Most of them believe that if a woman eats rabbit while pregnant, her child will be born with long floppy ears."

So I'm not at all sure what Winterfell people would believe or not believe. Though I am sure Jon was not conceived at Harrenhal.

Share on other sites

However, the Platypus argument (as I understand it) is that people at Winterfell are sufficiently confused about the timeline that they still believe Jon might have been conceived there.

The thing is, the text gives us no reason whatsoever to believe people at Winterfell think Jon could have been conceived at Harrenhal. What we do know is that Cat heard rumours that "whispered of Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguards, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes".

There is norhing there connecting any of the players and Harrenhal, or a tourney, or even hinting at Ned and Ashara having met previously.

Then later, Harwin talks to Arya about Ned & Ashara maybe having had a fling at Harrenhal. But they're not talking about Jon's mum. Ned has just told her that Wylla is Jon's mother. Then they talk about Ashara, Arya takes off and Harwin talks to her - trying to reassure her that her mum wasn't dishonoured - and talks about the tourney and how back then it was Brandon who was engaged to Cat.

9 minutes ago, JNR said:

This would make them pretty dense. But then, people are dense (both in life and in these books), and often do believe remarkably stupid things. (Quite a few people in my country really did believe it was a good idea to give a childish reality TV star personal control over four thousand nuclear weapons.)

OT but just read that someone is gonna put your president's name forth for a nobel. A Peace Nobel, i might add.

9 minutes ago, JNR said:

When Littlefinger pitches the story that Shireen is Selyse's bastard by Patchface, and says the proof is in her face, we get this:

So I'm not at all sure what Winterfell people would believe or not believe. Though I am sure Jon was not conceived at Harrenhal.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Again, no. That’s just your opinion. We have the text, from Cat’s own PoV, saying she travelled with Robb “when the wars were over at last”, not ‘6 (or x) months after the wars ended, when it would be safe’. "

And yet, Ned somehow reached Winterfell ahead of Cat.

But to me "when the wars are over" is a pretty flexible remark, as the wars will still be over 6 months or a year after the formal cessation of hostilities. And when were the wars over? And why the plural, "wars"? Did they have to put down outlaw bands to make the roads safe for travel?

By some account, the last battle of Robert's Rebellion was the capture of Dragonstone. And how old was Robb then? 9 months? 10 months? Older?

"Also, if Ned had gone first to RR then Winterfell, while Cat remained at RR w/ Robb to travel later, there would be something on it in the text. It would be super strange to have this happen and no one ever thinks about it ever or mentions it? "

If that makes sense to you, then fine. It makes zero sense to me. There is not a hint of a pretense by GRRM that he has told us all there is to know about Robert's Rebellion.

Edited February 20 by Platypus Rex

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But to me "when the wars are over" is a pretty flexible remark, as the wars will still be over 6 months or a year after the formal cessation of hostilities. And when were the wars over? And why the plural, "wars"? Did they have to put down outlaw bands to make the roads safe for travel?

By some account, the last battle of Robert's Rebellion was the capture of Dragonstone. And how old was Robb then? 9 months? 10 months? Older?

"Also, if Ned had gone first to RR then Winterfell, while Cat remained at RR w/ Robb to travel later, there would be something on it in the text. It would be super strange to have this happen and no one ever thinks about it ever or mentions it? "

If that makes sense to you, then fine. It makes zero sense to me. There is not a hint of a pretense by GRRM that he has told us all there is to know about Robert's Rebellion.

By her own account Cat was apart from Ned for a year. Give or take a little on that, but not 18 months or more.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

By her own account Cat was apart from Ned for a year. Give or take a little on that, but not 18 months or more.

The actual words "spent that year apart" are considerably more ambiguous. It can refer to a specific year, and not necessarily rule out them being apart for additional months of other years, nor even other years.

But even if one could construe the phrase "spent that year apart" as saying they were apart for about a year, and not much more, this still would not prove your case. He could have, and likely would have, visited her at Riverrun before proceeding North to Winterfell.

Edited February 20 by Platypus Rex

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The actual words "spent that year apart" are considerably more ambiguous. It can refer to a specific year, and not necessarily rule out them being apart for additional months of other years, nor even other years.

Quote

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the firstyearof her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man's needs, after all, and they hadspentthatyearapart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father's castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child's needs.

In the first year of her marriage, she learns of Jon. Which she can't do until Jon actually appears, first sign of which is at Starfall when Ned returns Dawn to the Daynes. So no more than 12 months, strictly speaking, should be less. But we've been generous and said lets give it some extra leeway.That year was spent apart.

19 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

But even if one could construe the phrase "spent that year apart" as saying they were apart for about a year, and not much more, this still would not prove your case. He could have, and likely would have, visited her at Riverrun before proceeding North to Winterfell.

So you get to invent stuff we haven't been told? And its not just an inconvenient gap with secrecy around it, its stuff that is no secret and should have come up in relevant casual conversation/thoughts.
And no its not likely, its much faster and more private to go by boat from KL to White Harbour than to travel past Riverrun and the Neck, and he's harbouring dangerous secrets.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"In the first year of her marriage, she learns of Jon. Which she can't do until Jon actually appears, first sign of which is at Starfall when Ned returns Dawn to the Daynes. So no more than 12 months, strictly speaking, should be less. But we've been generous and said lets give it some extra leeway.That year was spent apart. '

Even better. The year she was referring to was the first year of her marriage, which is also the year she learns of Jon's existence (which logically must have been near the end of that year). Nothing is said or implied about how long they spent apart in the following year. Her comments are a retrospective from the time she learns of Jon's existence.

She is not upset to learn of Jon's existence "in the first year of her marriage". But she is upset to find Jon installed at Winterfell, some undefined length of time later.

"So you get to invent stuff we haven't been told?"

I get to consider all reasonable possibilities, yes. I'm not the one trying to prove anything here. It is perfectly reasonable for me to point out that your conclusions don't necessarily follow from your premises

"And its not just an inconvenient gap with secrecy around it, its stuff that is no secret and should have come up in relevant casual conversation/thoughts."

Why on earth should it have come up in casual conversations??? These characters, if they are intended to be quasi-realistic, must logically must have had lots of episodes in their lives that GRRM does not have time to describe, or the series would be 20 times longer than it is already.

"And no its not likely, its much faster and more private to go by boat from KL to White Harbour than to travel past Riverrun and the Neck, and he's harbouring dangerous secrets."

I don't know what route he would necessarily take because I don't know what he needed to accomplish on the way.

But, at least, he might want to see his wife, if it were feasible to do so.

But all of this is unnecessary, since you have just helped me prove that Cat was merely referring to the year before she learned of Jon's existence, and not to anything that occurred afterwards.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think we've reached the point in the conversation where it is time to remind you that these are only theories. Any demands for absolute proof will have to await the publication of future volumes.

I very much doubt that your own preferred theories would survive the standards of proof you demand from those theories you oppose.

Ahh ... now we have reached the point in the conversation in which you raise straw man arguments to change the topic. I've never demanded absolute proof for any theory, nor have I even stated what is my preferred theory. I have criticized some theories of yours for drawing inferences that are not evident in the text. That's what we started talking about, not nonsense about absolute proof or any demands I have supposedly made.

On 2/18/2019 at 10:59 PM, Platypus Rex said:

Your argument was that Jon can't be older than his official birthdate, because people would know.

I've also never made this claim. It is entirely possible that Jon is older than his official name day, but that assumes Ned Stark lied about it. If Ned did lie, he is constrained by what is possible in constructing his lie. Jon cannot be obviously older than Robb for a lie to be believed, but that does not mean he cannot be slightly older that Robb and have the lie easily believed. Again, if you knew anything about the arguments I've made on this topic over the course of the last ten plus years, you would know I think it is quite possible Lord Eddard does lie about Jon's name day in order to hide its proximity, in both time and place, from his sister's death. Ned has a very understandable reason to do so. But that does not mean the rest of the world doubts how old Jon is. Catelyn believes her husband's story. The servants at Winterfell tell tales about who they think is Jon's mother, but they don't say anything about Jon being older than Ned says he is. They have no reason to because the story they know fits what their Lord tells them.

Robert and the people of Starfall believe Wylla is Jon's mother, and in believing so they have no possible reason to dispute Jon's age. No doubt the people of Robert's court - Varys, Pycelle, Jon Arryn, Stannis Baratheon, etc. - have taken notice of both Ned's tale of his return and of Jon's purported age. Yet we hear nothing to support doubts of Ned's account of Jon's age. The most we hear are doubts by Cersei about the identity of Jon's mother, but here it is clear that she has no argument with Ned about when Jon is conceived. She doubts that Jon's mother was a Dornish peasant, and that maybe Ned's supposed old flame, the Lady Ashara Dayne, is Jon's mom. How Ned changing the date of Jon's birth would help him hide this version of his tale is entirely unclear. If fact, one of the real problems with the N+A=J theory is just why would Ned lie about it at all? It is one thing to not talk about an old love affair, but it is entirely another thing to start inventing a false narrative about Jon's birth. It doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but we absolutely need more information about why Ned would do such a thing. This would be especially true if Jon was in fact conceived at Harrenhal because then Jon's real name day would help Ned in all kinds of ways. Ned should be shouting the fact he didn't cheat on Catelyn or this is his brother's bastard son, or any of the variants of the tale that place Jon's conception during the Harrenhal tourney. He does none of that.

On 2/18/2019 at 10:59 PM, Platypus Rex said:

Well, apparently people DO know, or at least think, that he was conceived at an earlier date. But (you say) you cannot absolutely prove that people think that. But these are the premises of YOUR argument - that people WOULD know, and they DON'T know, so this can't be true. It is up to you to establish the premises on which your argument relies, not rely on my inability to absolutely disprove those unestablished premises.

If it is apparent that people in the story know, or think they know, that Jon is conceived at an earlier date, then you should be able to show one of these people saying just that. The only story that places Jon's conception earlier than the time period following Robb's conception is the Fisherman's Daughter's tale as told by Lord Godric to Davos. While this would make Jon older than Robb by a considerable time, it doesn't get to the age of a Harrenhal conception by something approximating four to six months. Did you want to discuss the likelihood of Lord Godric's tale being true?

On 2/18/2019 at 10:59 PM, Platypus Rex said:

My perspective is that there is only one old Winterfell story about Ned and Ashara, and we get two different pieces of it from Harwin and Catelyn. And Harwin does assure Arya that her father did not dishonor Catelyn because the story, even if true, was only about what happened while Brandon was still alive and Cat betrothed to Brandon. Your perspective is that there are 2 old Winterfell stories, one where the tryst occurs at Harrenhal, but is not connected to Jon, and another where the tryst does not occur at Harrenhal or continues after Harrenhal, and is connected to Jon. This is how you avoid the conclusion that the servants at Winterfell believe Jon was conceived earlier. Okay, sure. You can do that. But you cannot prove that your approach is the correct one.

As for Harwin's remarks, he is not responding to anything Ned said about Wylla, and is probably not even aware of those remarks. Arya accepted the story about Wylla. It was the story about Ashara that angered Arya and caused her to call Ned a liar; and apparently caused Ned to appeal to Harwin. And when Harwin broaches the subject with Arya, it is the story of Ashara he talks about and not the story of Wylla. Not that it matters, as Harwin does not necessarily vouch for the old Winterfell tale about Ashara, or say that it is necessarily true. He is no doubt aware that there is another tale concerning Jon's parentage. His point was even if the story IS true, her father did not dishonor her mother.

Actually my point is neither the story as told by the servants at Winterfell that Catelyn tells us, or the tale as told by Harwin and/or Ned Dayne to Arya support the idea of a conception at the Harrenhal tourney. To the contrary, where the stories touch on where and when Jon is conceived they support the idea this occurs while Ned Stark is at war. The Winterfell servants may think Ashara is Jon's mother, but they assume a later date for Jon's conception. Ned Dayne's tale certainly does as well. Harwin tale doesn't deal with Jon's conception. It deals with the story of a Ashara/Ned romance.

Now, a Ashara and Ned tryst later during the war is actually possible, but we have as of yet no indication of such a meeting of Ashara and Ned. As Martin fleshes out the details of this back story we may still get further contact between the two. Of course, that doesn't help those who are trying to advance the dead Brandon as Jon's father.